Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[Kliska]

Forgive me, that was uncharitable of me.

It’s alright, the fact is a lot of people do cherry pick (especially on internet forums lol). Sometimes a quick quote is a shorthand form of a larger theological thought. It was my shorthand way of saying that the Spirit is instrumental in all of our lives and in guiding us and convicting us, most of us agree on that. The difference is in how we believe He operates more directly. For many protestants the emphasis is more on a direct relationship in all things, for many more liturgical churches, the emphasis is more on a hierarchical-stype of relationship due to certain church offices. So, for example, in the RCC the members of the magisterium and the pope are viewed as having a much more direct relationship to the Spirit on matters of church doctrine, dogmas, etc…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t call those who don’t practice sola scriptura anathema. Embracing the idea of sola scriptura is not necessary for salvation. And, again, sola scriptura is not the same as solo scriptura.

Thank you Kliska for your response; Although you did not answer my question?

You said;

Kliska;12419368] The way we see it is that teaching must align with scripture and if we hear a teaching and turn to scripture and find contradiction, we reject the teaching.

Sola Scriptura teaching or practice is contradiction to Scripture, because it does not “align” with scripture and according to your Sola Scriptura practice of faith, Sola scriptura should be rejected.

I get the sense that Sola Scriptura is loosing it’s foundation, when you state “Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation”

When is Sola Scriptura not necessary for salvation?

You introduced the Spirit from your previous posts; Can any Sola Scripturalist give an explanation of how that Spirit is transmitted to you?

Was it by reading the Sola Scriptura alone? We know that can not be, because the Ethiopian was reading the prophets and did not understand it, until an apostle appears to orally transmit that Holy Spirit from his person, when the apostle baptized the Ethiopian, it is not until the Ethiopian received the Spirit at baptism, by the oral transmission and profession of faith, not Sola Scriptura, the Ethiopian receives the mind of Christ to understand the Word of God, when the Holy Spirit he receives gives him understanding.

Sola Scriptura does not breathe the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura calls the Ethiopian to search for the teacher the Holy Spirit when it is God who teaches us. But it is by the Apostles and their Apostolic successors who consecrated one in Christ, are the Chosen one by God to baptize and forgive sin. Sola Scriptura does not transmit our Holy comforter to us. The Holy writ, only calls us to the waters which our souls thirst for.

So how does Sola Scriptura transmit the Holy Spirit to a Sola Scripturalist? If Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation. We Catholics do not separate Scripture, from the One living Word, who breathes the Holy Spirit into our being. Sola Scriptura has no place here by it’s Sola practice that does nothing.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

John: Not everything He did has been set down here.

Hi Duane, I agree with you. Not everything Jesus said and did never gets written.

Then how do we know what did not get written that got handed down to us?

Oral Sacred Tradition, transmitted by the Word and breath from the consecrated Apostle in who is one in Christ.

 

[Kliska]

Thank you Kliska for your response; Although you did not answer my question?

I did, but perhaps wasn’t direct enough? I’ll try to explain, let me know if it still doesn’t clarify anything.

You said;

Sola Scriptura teaching or practice is contradiction to Scripture, because it does not “align” with scripture and according to your Sola Scriptura practice of faith, Sola scriptura should be rejected.

If sola scriptura as properly defined was contradicted by scripture, then sola scripture would need to be rejected. The rejections of “sola scriptura” that I’ve seen are usually rejecting something other than actual “sola scriptura” for example, solo scriptura would be rejected. Sola scriptura as properly defined doesn’t conflict with scripture.

I get the sense that Sola Scriptura is loosing it’s foundation, when you state “Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation”

Sola scriptura doesn’t save, Jesus saves.

When is Sola Scriptura not necessary for salvation?

It never is; salvation comes by Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

You introduced the Spirit from your previous posts; Can any Sola Scripturalist give an explanation of how that Spirit is transmitted to you?

Was it by reading the Sola Scriptura alone? We know that can not be, because the Ethiopian was reading the prophets and did not understand it, until an apostle appears to orally transmit that Holy Spirit from his person, when the apostle baptized the Ethiopian, it is not until the Ethiopian received the Spirit at baptism, by the oral transmission and profession of faith, not Sola Scriptura, the Ethiopian receives the mind of Christ to understand the Word of God, when the Holy Spirit he receives gives him understanding.

The Ethiopian is an example of Sola scriptura properly defined. If Phillip would have told the Ethiopian that Jesus was not of the line of David, then the Ethiopian would have known that teaching was false because scripture, the OT, is clear. Sola scriptura acknowledges the role of humans in the lives of other humans, including an oral preaching of the gospel. What we have now, as opposed to the Ethiopian, is a written account of the New Testament, as well as the Old, which he already had. How do we know about the Ethiopian? It is written.

Sola Scriptura does not breathe the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura calls the Ethiopian to search for the teacher the Holy Spirit when it is God who teaches us. But it is by the Apostles and their Apostolic successors who consecrated one in Christ, are the Chosen one by God to baptize and forgive sin. Sola Scriptura does not transmit our Holy comforter to us. The Holy writ, only calls us to the waters which our souls thirst for.

The word is living. Whether preached orally or in written form, faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God. You are right; the Living water is Jesus Himself.

Peace be with you

And also with you!

 

[TxGodfollower]

Thank you Kliska for your response; Although you did not answer my question?

You said;

Sola Scriptura teaching or practice is contradiction to Scripture, because it does not “align” with scripture and according to your Sola Scriptura practice of faith, Sola scriptura should be rejected.

I get the sense that Sola Scriptura is loosing it’s foundation, when you state “Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation”

When is Sola Scriptura not necessary for salvation?

You introduced the Spirit from your previous posts; Can any Sola Scripturalist give an explanation of how that Spirit is transmitted to you?

Was it by reading the Sola Scriptura alone? We know that can not be, because the Ethiopian was reading the prophets and did not understand it, until an apostle appears to orally transmit that Holy Spirit from his person, when the apostle baptized the Ethiopian, it is not until the Ethiopian received the Spirit at baptism, by the oral transmission and profession of faith, not Sola Scriptura, the Ethiopian receives the mind of Christ to understand the Word of God, when the Holy Spirit he receives gives him understanding.

Sola Scriptura does not breathe the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura calls the Ethiopian to search for the teacher the Holy Spirit when it is God who teaches us. But it is by the Apostles and their Apostolic successors who consecrated one in Christ, are the Chosen one by God to baptize and forgive sin. Sola Scriptura does not transmit our Holy comforter to us. The Holy writ, only calls us to the waters which our souls thirst for.

So how does Sola Scriptura transmit the Holy Spirit to a Sola Scripturalist? If Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation. We Catholics do not separate Scripture, from the One living Word, who breathes the Holy Spirit into our being. Sola Scriptura has no place here by it’s Sola practice that does nothing.

Peace be with you

Faith in Christ is needed for salvation (through Grace), not what authority level you give to Scripture.

I have a question for you then, on the Holy Spirit. If a person lives in the middle of nowhere, gets a Bible, believes and accepts Jesus, but he never knew about baptism. He then lived a long life and never learned more. Would you say he then didn’t have the Holy Spirit dwelling within him?

 

[pablope]

The scriptures themselves establish the church as a subordinate authority with the power to enforce discipline within the church (Acts 15/16). A

As for what scripture Paul was referring to, I think it is possible that he could have meant all the scriptures inspired by God, or purely the Old Testament (given the context). Of course, he does not speak explicitly on our present debate about the 66 or 73 book canon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
But unfortunately, your timeline is about 1600 years late. The protestant 66 canon did not show up till after the Reformation

So ironically, the Catholic 73 canon book did not show up until it was created as a response to the Reformation.

I think you should check again. It was established after AD382, at the council of Rome, and after Pope Damasus proclaimed it and instructed St. Jerome to translate into Latin, which became the Latin Vulgate, and was the Bible of the Church since.

taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

The status of the deuterocanonical books within the Catholic Canon was only established at Trent around 1546. Prior to that, only a few regional councils had spoken on the matter, which of course did not have the authority to speak for the whole church.

Wrong again, brother. Here is what Trent actually decreed:

the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Trent did not proclaim anything new, it affirmed what had previouisly been in use-what is read in the Churches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
The question is about AD200, and in this time, al the scholarly class were being hunted down and executed by the Romans, and burning everything Christian they could get a hold of.

And by the way, how do you think they were making copies then, by the printing press or by hand copying?

So the question then…how could this scholarly class have access to the Scriptures, or much less, the 66 book protestant canon?

This is all highly speculative.

Spreading the Gospel would have of course been highly challenging by any means amidst such persecution. But ingenuity prevails and God provides. We are promised that the very gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. If God is for us, who can be against us? Would it have been beyond God’s power to provide for his church?

What is highly speculative? That there was no printing press and the romans burned everything Christian they could find?

The Gospel was spread through oral means, not writings, which could not be preserved and were destroyed by the romans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Yes, because if you go back one verse, and include v14, it contradicts your own belief and statement, it is not Scripture alone. Again, here is the passage from V14:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And by the way, which Scripture does St. Paul refer to, the 66 book protestant Bible or the 73 book Catholic Bible or something else?

I think a plain reading of those verses show that Paul is speaking purely of the Holy Scriptures when he says they are able to make us wise unto salvation.

.

Again, including V14, and a plain reading of Scripture…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,…is it Scripture alone which makes one wise unto salvation?

As for what scripture Paul was referring to, I think it is possible that he could have meant all the scriptures inspired by God, or purely the Old Testament (given the context). Of course, he does not speak explicitly on our present debate about the 66 or 73 book canon

And if you are going to rely on Scripture to make you wise unto salvation, don’t you think you would want to use the correct Bible? So which is the correct Bible to make one wise unto salvation, the 66 book protestant Bible or the Catholic 73 book Bible?

And St. Paul does not speak explicitly because he had no notion that his writings would become Scirpture.

 

[pablope]

EDIT: Apologies for triple post but I exceeded the 6,000 word post limit. Other two parts to this reply are on the previous page.

The New Testament is another term for New Covenant, in other words the covenant of grace which has replaced the old covenant of works. Please don’t make me debate the ‘Real Presence’ as well, there is only so much I can cope with!

 

[pablope]

Hi guys. I am doing my best to keep up with the replies here, so I am sorry if I have left anybody feeling ignored. I will try to respond to each direct reply to my posts.

Well, in a similar vein, the modern Catholic canon is only “generally” and “almost” the same as those proposed by various authority figures in the early church, including the Church Fathers.

That is why a Church council was convened for the purpose of sifting out the opinions of those varying ECFs.

I feel that the debate about what particular books comprise scripture is a separate one to the subject of this thread, which is concerned with the relationship of tradition with scripture in general.

Does the quote below describe your understanding of protestant tradition:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

As to why I have a 66 book canon, well… I think it is important to remember we agree on 27 of the books regarding the New Testament. I know we differ on the Old, because the Catholic OT corresponds with the Septuagint, and the Protestant OT corresponds with the Hebrew Bible. I guess there are decent arguments for both sides but like I said it is not the primary issue of this thread.

It justification for the protestant canon relying on the Hebrew canon is a novel idea.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

The “Council of Jamnia” Almost Certainly Didn’t Exist: This is a biggie. We know that there was a Rabbinical school at Jamnia, but there’s no evidence that any Council ever occurred there. The “Council” is just a hypothesis put forward in 1871 by Heinrich Graetz, to explain how the Jews ended up with a single canon.

Remember that sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must come from the Bible. The canon of Scripture is certainly a doctrine: one of the most important doctrines, in fact. And yet Protestants advancing this view are deriving this doctrine not from Scripture, but from a Pharisaic tradition. Unless sola Scriptura now means “Scripture plus traditions of the Pharisees,” it’s a massive walking contradiction for Protestants to advance this imagined Council as a way to derive the Books of the Bible.

Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it’s Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It’s just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question of the canon of Scripture.

I do not see where this idea that the church is free from error (even only in certain circumstances) comes from.

Do you think the HS will ever cause the Church to commit error in its teachings on what was handed down by the Apostles, on faith and morals?

 

[adf417]

Hi guys. I am doing my best to keep up with the replies here, so I am sorry if I have left anybody feeling ignored. I will try to respond to each direct reply to my posts.

Understood. And I see your responses are becoming duplicates to different people so if I ask another question feel free to direct me to answer previously posted.

Well, in a similar vein, the modern Catholic canon is only “generally” and “almost” the same as those proposed by various authority figures in the early church, including the Church Fathers.

You are making my case for me. What other reason would the Council of Carthage have had to convene?

I feel that the debate about what particular books comprise scripture is a separate one to the subject of this thread, which is concerned with the relationship of tradition with scripture in general.

I agree but I don’t care about what books you have in your bible. What we keep trying to point out is by what authority that list of book in the bible came about. Even that in itself is irrelevant until 2 different people decide their interpretation of said scripture is the correct interpretation.

As to why I have a 66 book canon, well… I think it is important to remember we agree on 27 of the books regarding the New Testament. I know we differ on the Old, because the Catholic OT corresponds with the Septuagint, and the Protestant OT corresponds with the Hebrew Bible. I guess there are decent arguments for both sides but like I said it is not the primary issue of this thread.

The 27 books of the NT is where the focus must lie. I don’t care about the OT for the reason I gave above. Its all about the 27 books which is where the church “generally” agreed and where the early fathers “almost” were in agreement.

Peace!!!

 

[Duane1966]

Let’s take different tactic. Let’s say the epistle of James had been written down, lost, but still handed down orally. The Church would still hold his teachings as inspired, and keep them as Sacred Tradition. Under SS, Protestants would reject his teachings as unscriptural and uninspired. Later a copy of the epistle is found in a cave. Is his epistle inspired?

Another scenario (thanks to Marcus Grodi). A pastor (let’s call him Duane) preaches for many years. In his homilies numerous times Duane preaches on the doctrine of the Trinity. Duane writes many letters to his parishioners, but never mentions the Trinity in them. 20 years after Duane’s death, a scholar gathers his letters and puts them in a collection. He then announces to the world, that Duane did not believe in the Trinity. You as one of the only parishioners still alive say: wait a minute I was there, I heard him preach many times on the Trinity, of course he believed in it. The scholar says: sorry it is not written, I can only go by that, your oral tradition is worthless.

We both know the scholar is wrong in this instance. Yet this is the criteria of SS. The RC says wait minute, we were there before, during, and after these things were written down. The Apostles didn’t just teach what is in the bible. And SS says: sorry not written down.

p.s. I have read those letters. That Duane was a terrible preacher.

 

[Duane1966]

Did Jesus only give the HS to His Church some of the time? I thought He said He would send the Spirit to guide Her into ALL truth. He also said He would be with us unto the end of the age. If She is not infallible on Her teachings then the HS has not guided Her into all truth, making Jesus a liar. I reject that theory.

Something I don’t understand is why anyone has a problem with the doctine of infallibility. Do you realize that by belonging to a denomination that doesn’t teach this you belong to one that is implying implicitly that: we maybe teaching error? No wonder there are so many denominations all claiming to teach error. Boy I’d like to join one of them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

TxGodfollower;12419784]Faith in Christ is needed for salvation (through Grace),

That is debatable. If you place faith on trial here? then faith never comes by Sola Scriptura. Faith comes by hearing. and hearing the oral Word from those whom God appointed as Apostles. Faith never comes from any Sola Scriptura practice no matter how it is critiqued. A Faith derived from a Sola Scriptura is contradicted many times from scripture. Scripture condemns a faith from Sola Scriptura because Faith does not come from reading Sola Scriptura.

not what authority level you give to Scripture

.

I am sorry, but you have that backwards; it is not the Catholic faith that disrupts or misplaces the Word of God written on a questionable authority from Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura disrupts the flow of the Spirit, by placing it above the living Word of God that breathed from the Sacred Oral Traditions and practices.

I have a question for you then, on the Holy Spirit. If a person lives in the middle of nowhere, gets a Bible, believes and accepts Jesus, but he never knew about baptism. He then lived a long life and never learned more. Would you say he then didn’t have the Holy Spirit dwelling within him?

I would say no. Because the bible, ink on a page alone does not transmit the Holy gift of the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that God could not send the person an Angel in the person of Philip, who baptized the isolated Ethiopian in the possession of scripture and immediately disappeared.

Is my question to difficult for the Sola Scripturalist here? How is the Holy Spirit transmitted to a Sola Scriptura believer, when it is said here that Sola Scriptura cannot save anyone?

I hope to at least get a response

 

[guanophore]

Precisely; who did He promise the guidance of the Spirit to?  The church (the ekklesia), the magisterium, the pope?

Yes! All of us can benefit from the promise to be led into “all truth”, but this promise was made to the Apostles, and was passed on to their successors, the bishops. Those who wish to get in on the promise need to be in unity with them. John is clear that fellowship is the sign of unity:

3 That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:3

As John says earlier in the verse prior (this gives us the context of the promise):

19 They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us: but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.1 John 2:19

Those who depart from the unity are “not of us”, and cannot inherit the promise.

And in another letter John refers to the rejection of his Apostolic authority:

9 I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. 3 John 9–10

So the church in which the Spirit leads each member through the Holy unction is the Church united to the Bishops, and under their authority.

The RCC in essence teaches "trickle down" truth; the Spirit teaches the magisterium and the pope, and the magisterium and the pope teach the church.  That's not the view of most protestants, instead the Spirit is promised to the ekklesia, who are all the out-called ones; you, me, the pope, etc... all of us.

This is just a misperception, Kliska. I think it emanates from poor catechesis, because there are many Catholics who don’t take responsibility for their faith, and expect the leadership to carry the duty. This is inconsistent with the Church teaching, however, as you will see when you read Lumen Gentium.
sensus fideliumthat clarifies this attitude is an error.

Scripture itself refutes this attitude:

8 Therefore it is said, ,he …and he gave gifts to men.” … 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints** for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Chris**t, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. " Ephesians 4:8–15

It is the duty of those appointed and gifted by Christ to equip the saints, and the duty of the saints to do the work of the ministry. Ephesians 4:8–15

This is the concept that is addressed in Lumen Gentium, and it is a very much needed correction for the myth you have articulated here. There are far too many Catholics who have not been educated that it is not “trickle down”.

I will concede, though, that the ordained do have a special responsibility as custodians of the doctrines of the faith. They have taken vows to protect, preserve, and promulgate the One Faith.

John says “you need no man teach you” to believers. The magisterium and the pope are men.3 John 9–10. We already agree on that; the Spirit will.

I think the above passage from Ephesians soundly refutes your conclusion here. Clearly this verse must be interpreted in such a way that it is consistent with the rest of the NT. John is writing to those who are solid in their faith, and have the sensus fidelium. This occurred, though, because they did receive the Apostolic instruction.

 

[guanophore]

The Holy Spirit is a Person, and He isn’t present in “proportion.” What I mean is, a person, an individual either has the Spirit or he doesn’t. Each individual has given over authority to the Spirit in different proportions, however, and that leads to, as an example, different interpretations of scripture. Most humans don’t like to change their minds, especially on doctrinal issues that they have become stubborn over or doctrinal issues that gives worldly power if seen a certain way. The problem, we agree, is always on the part of humans, not God.

Yes, I think this is very accurately stated. This is one reason, though, that we must rely on those who have gone before us. The HS will not lead modern Christians in an opposite direction from where he has led in the past. We all see in a glass darkly, so we must rely also on the overall revelation by Jesus of Himself. You also make a good point about the fact that we get habituated to our ideas and have trouble relinquishing them.

Using your examples we can also see the same issue with “tradition.” Who has the tradition right, the Orthodox Churches, or the Catholic churches?

Do you really think there is so much difference? Supposing we just all agreed that the tradition on which EO and CC agree? That is 90 and some %, and that leaves Protestants still lacking. There is an authorative structure, 7 sacraments, and ancient beliefs about justification that were abandoned during the Reformation.

John wrote it, not me.  Notice he was writing to those that were already believers.

Yes, and I think a very seasoned community of believers. There is no indication, though, that they were not united to magesterial authority.

What many of us feel is that the gospel isn't something that is complicated, it is straightforward and is centered on the reality of Jesus; Who He is, what He has done, His sacrifice, death, resurrection.

Yes, especially at the start. Those who converted at Pentecost, though they were religious people, did not need a lot of instruction. That being said, though, after the initial profession of faith, there is a lifetime of instruction.

The Truth isn’t something to be sought after as far as complicated rules and regulations, like the Jews presented, but rather the Truth is a person to be recognized.

Yes. I don’t know if you have been following the news about Pope Francis, but this is what he is emphasizing right now.

There are rules and regulations, and they can be complicated, but it all starts with relationship to the Truth - his person.

None of us dismiss the need for the Apostles, and none of us dismiss the need for scripture which we know God guided the writers to write. There are people especially gifted to help others in a myriad of ways, but in the end, it is indeed the Spirit that guides us toward the Truth that is Christ. Some read the gospel and give their lives over to God, some read the gospel and deny Him.

And there are some that are in the middle. The majority of American Catholics, I am ashamed to say, are “cafeteria catholics” who are actually Protestants but don’t realize it, and think they can pick and choose which part of the Apostolic faith they will accept. They defy the authority of the Church and basic doctrines of the faith.

Absolutely, and that is reflected in the Nicene creed and anyone that professes it. What is debated is what did the authority look like in the time of the Apostles and what did they teach that believers had to follow in order to be submissive to God.

Yes, this is where we rely on the Fathers of the Church to see into that era. It was reading the Pre-Nicean fathers that got me back into the CC after I had wandered around looking for a congregation that better fit my beliefs.

**

Kliska:
That’s begging the question that has been tackled over and over again on these boards, and in history as well. The form of the authority the RCC presents is not one that we see in the earliest time of the church, and we are repeated told to check teaching to make sure that is true. We are supposed to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.**

Well, we read the history differently I suppose,

Yes, we are all responsible for our own faith, to study to show ourselves approved unto God. And there are some priests, nuns and catechists that teach things that are wrong, and need to be corrected.

These are instances of departing from the doctrines of the faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kliska;12419751]I did, but perhaps wasn’t direct enough? I’ll try to explain, let me know if it still doesn’t clarify anything.

Thanks Kliska for your clarification.

If sola scriptura as properly defined was contradicted by scripture, then sola scripture would need to be rejected.

Ok, can you properly define Sola Scriptura for myself and the board, so that it removes any of the guessing of which Sola Scriptura interpretation is being addressed here?

Could you please define your Sola Scriptura to reveal it does not contradict scripture when measured up against the Apostolic Oral Traditional teachings.

A Catholic Apostolic Oral Tradition never contradicts sacred Scripture.

The rejections of “sola scriptura” that I’ve seen are usually rejecting something other than actual “sola scriptura” for example, solo scriptura would be rejected.

This is the first time I have ever heard of a Solo Scriptura. Can you please enlighten me, and define the difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura?

Sola scriptura doesn’t save, Jesus saves.

Then Sola Scriptura places itself alone and apart from the living Word of God, creating Sola Scriptura to be a false idol.

No one can divide the Word of God. The Sola Scriptura cannot isolate itself in it’s Sola, apart from the presence of the Word of God living. The Word of God written, is never isolated apart from the Word of God living. Sola Scriptura here reveals a contradiction of faith.

What is the Word of God living. That which is breathed out in us in the Holy Spirit present in the sacraments, where the Word of God written, becomes present in the Word of God made flesh and blood.

Maybe this Apostolic Traditional Christian Faith requires the True Holy Spirit to teach Sola Scripturalist here. Because most Sola Scripturalist deny Jesus True presence body and blood in the Eucharist, from which the Written Scripture gives witness to the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

It never is; salvation comes by Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

That’s a breath of fresh air. Salvation does not come by Faith alone, nor does it come by Sola Scriptura alone. It is that living Word made flesh in our presence, who graces us with salvation and justification, confirmed in the Holy Spirit.

The Ethiopian is an example of Sola scriptura properly defined. If Phillip would have told the Ethiopian that Jesus was not of the line of David, then the Ethiopian would have known that teaching was false because scripture, the OT, is clear. Sola scriptura acknowledges the role of humans in the lives of other humans, including an oral preaching of the gospel. What we have now, as opposed to the Ethiopian, is a written account of the New Testament, as well as the Old, which he already had. How do we know about the Ethiopian? It is written.

Correction, we The Catholic Church knew of the Ethiopian first by his oral witness and Philip’s oral witness to the Church, before Luther read about it in the new Testament centuries later.

Suffice it to say. Sola Scriptura for the poor rich Ethiopian did not bring him salvation. The feet of the one, who breathes God Word inspired in obedience to the Lord, baptized the Ethiopian which “saves you now”, that is put to Holy Writ at a later time.

Had Philip not breathed his testimony of the Ethiopian out to his hearers that produced a faith in them. It need not have been penned down to Holy Writ, because the Oral Tradition carries it on to all ages.

We are blessed today, because the Catholic church recorded into Holy Writ, what they heard orally from Philip and the Ethiopian. Sola Scriptura does not exist here, yet for another sixteen hundred years later.

The word is living. Whether preached orally or in written form, faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God. You are right; the Living water is Jesus Himself.

That Word that is breathed out from the Apostles, some teachings are put to holy writ. Which you call Sola Scriptura. The Apostolic faith and practice, that was not put down in Holy Writ, was handed down by their Inspired Word from God breathed Orally. This is why Sola Scriptura is a contradiction to the Apostolic Faith that comes to us both by written and Orally.

Sola Scriptura has no place to be isolated or Sola from the Oral breathed out Apostolic faith that were heard in the first century unchanged today in the Catholic church in Apostolic Christian practice.

 

[Kliska]

Ok, can you properly define Sola Scriptura for myself and the board, so that it removes any of the guessing of which Sola Scriptura interpretation is being addressed here?

It has been defined countless times on the board. In short, the salient point is what sola scriptura is not; it is not solo scriptura. Solo Scriptura is where all tradition and people are kind of tossed out when learning the faith. Sola Scriptura still acknowledges tradition, the church, the teaching offices, brilliant theologians, etc… Sola Scriptura’s main function is to act as a plumb line. As we see in the OT and in Jesus’ use of the OT there is a very specific reason why things are written down.

In short Solo scriptura basically denies the body of Christ and the teaching offices and the value of theologians. Sola Scriptura does not.

A Catholic Apostolic Oral Tradition never contradicts sacred Scripture.

This is a statement that begs the question; does RCC tradition contradict sacred scripture. The RCC says no. The rest of Christendom says yes, some to a greater extent than others, or else we’d all be Catholic.

Then Sola Scriptura places itself alone and apart from the living Word of God, creating Sola Scriptura to be a false idol.

Sola Scriptura is a label, it’s not an actual “thing.” It describes a way of norming; scripture, which we all recognize as the word of God, is used to norm doctrine. It does not deny oral transmission, it undergirds it. Further it does not deny the other ways in which God communicates to us; the Heavens declare the glory of God, for example.

That’s a breath of fresh air. Salvation does not come by Faith alone, nor does it come by Sola Scriptura alone. It is that living Word made flesh in our presence, who graces us with salvation and justification, confirmed in the Holy Spirit.

Luther, and the Lutherans here (of which I’m not one), made it clear what the 5 sola’s mean. They fully acknowledge that salvation is of Jesus Christ by grace through faith, as does the RCC.

Correction, we The Catholic Church knew of the Ethiopian first by his oral witness and Philip’s oral witness to the Church, before Luther read about it in the new Testament centuries later.

Suffice it to say. Sola Scriptura for the poor rich Ethiopian did not bring him salvation. The feet of the one, who breathes God Word inspired in obedience to the Lord, baptized the Ethiopian which “saves you now”, that is put to Holy Writ at a later time.

You and I have the story in it’s current form in a manner you and I can check out because it was written in a book that was inspired by the Spirit. Again, you seem to think that Sola Scriptura denies evangelists, it doesn’t. How did the Ethiopian know that Phillip was telling the truth? He was sitting right there reading and studying scripture. He knew the story in Isaiah, and Phillip told him of Christ. If Phillip would have told him something that did not line up with scripture, the Ethiopian would have known Phillip was lying, but since it lined up with what he was reading, the Ethiopian believed.

That Word that is breathed out from the Apostles, some teachings are put to holy writ. Which you call Sola Scriptura. The Apostolic faith and practice, that was not put down in Holy Writ, was handed down by their Inspired Word from God breathed Orally. This is why Sola Scriptura is a contradiction to the Apostolic Faith that comes to us both by written and Orally.

I’ve just shown how that is an erroneous belief about Sola Scriptura. It’s alright to disagree with sola scriptura, but make sure you understand what those that use sola scriptura actually mean by it so that you aren’t painting them in a way that isn’t accurate. It’s kind of the same thing when protestants claim you are worshiping statues, that’s not what you are doing and it isn’t charitable for people to make those claims.

 

[adf417]

It has been defined countless times on the board. In short, the salient point is what sola scriptura is not; it is not solo scriptura. Solo Scriptura is where all tradition and people are kind of tossed out when learning the faith. Sola Scriptura still acknowledges tradition, the church, the teaching offices, brilliant theologians, etc… Sola Scriptura’s main function is to act as a plumb line. As we see in the OT and in Jesus’ use of the OT there is a very specific reason why things are written down.

In short Solo scriptura basically denies the body of Christ and the teaching offices and the value of theologians. Sola Scriptura does not.

This is a statement that begs the question; does RCC tradition contradict sacred scripture. The RCC says no. The rest of Christendom says yes, some to a greater extent than others, or else we’d all be Catholic.

Sola Scriptura is a label, it’s not an actual “thing.” It describes a way of norming; scripture, which we all recognize as the word of God, is used to norm doctrine. It does not deny oral transmission, it undergirds it. Further it does not deny the other ways in which God communicates to us; the Heavens declare the glory of God, for example.

Luther, and the Lutherans here (of which I’m not one), made it clear what the 5 sola’s mean. They fully acknowledge that salvation is of Jesus Christ by grace through faith, as does the RCC.

You and I have the story in it’s current form in a manner you and I can check out because it was written in a book that was inspired by the Spirit. Again, you seem to think that Sola Scriptura denies evangelists, it doesn’t. How did the Ethiopian know that Phillip was telling the truth? He was sitting right there reading and studying scripture. He knew the story in Isaiah, and Phillip told him of Christ. If Phillip would have told him something that did not line up with scripture, the Ethiopian would have known Phillip was lying, but since it lined up with what he was reading, the Ethiopian believed.

I’ve just shown how that is an erroneous belief about Sola Scriptura. It’s alright to disagree with sola scriptura, but make sure you understand what those that use sola scriptura actually mean by it so that you aren’t painting them in a way that isn’t accurate. It’s kind of the same thing when protestants claim you are worshiping statues, that’s not what you are doing and it isn’t charitable for people to make those claims.

All this is well an good from my limited perspective and I can respect this concept until it is placed in practical perspective. As has been said before, this concept of sola scriptura, or any form described countless times here on CAF, cannot nor does not explain the large, neon, chartreuse elephant in the room. And that is those who say they practice sola scripture, what ever definition you or they choose, consistently and continually interpret the scriptures differently and to some degree drastically. I can’t see any reason to continue discussing the definition or purpose. The name is self explanatory, the results are self refuting.

Peace!!!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kliska;12421552] Sola Scriptura still acknowledges tradition, the church, the teaching offices, brilliant theologians, etc…

That’s a false statement Kliska.

Let’s’ be honest here Kliska; The men who founded Sola Scriptura rejected the Apostolic Church Magisterium from Apostolic succession from their Sola Scriptura interpretation. Your reformers denied many things from Apostolic "T"radition that graced our human conscience; of penance, virginity, and the efficacy of good works including the totality of the sacramental economy. The only thing the Sola Scriptura founders did not deny, change or protest was the Catholic dogma of Hell.

Your Statement is correct Kliska, When if you are addressing the Sola Scriptura founders follow their own man made "t"raditions such as their own confessions and creedo’s for all Sola Scripturalist to follow. These same Sola Scriptura founders, became their own teaching office that derived from their own Sola Scriptura reading to measure all things against from their own invented professions, confessions and creed’s binding them to a isolated community of believers that resulted from the Sola Scriptura practices.

Sola Scriptura’s main function is to act as a plumb line. As we see in the OT and in Jesus’ use of the OT there is a very specific reason why things are written down.

That is key here Kliska; that “plumb line” is a measuring standard used by the Sola Scripturalist to reject the Apostolic Traditions from which they came. What they reject they become blind to what is divinely revealed Orally and written from Tradition and Scripture. The founding Sola Scripturalist invent their own confessions and tradtions from men interpreting from Sola Scriptura without Apostolic Tradition as the balancing factor that contradicts the Holy Spirit’s revelation to the Apostles and their Apostolic Successors.

As far as the OT is concerned. In itself a Sola Scriptura does not exist. The OT is a foreshadowing of the things fulfilled in Christ, one is written and one is not. And when Jesus referenced the OT, He did so to the learned Jew who sit in the seat of Moses to correct them.

Jesus did not reference scripture to the illiterate and unlearned of scripture. Jesus presence the living Word of God is all these little ones needed for faith. This has been my point on the Ethiopian scenario, where a Sola Scriptura never exist in a practice as you presented here.

You introduce, dare I say a sixteenth century Sola Scriptura practice to a First century divine revelation that places a new wine (Sola Scriptura) into old wine skins (first century divine revelation), that cause destruction to the wineskins.

In short Solo scriptura basically denies the body of Christ and the teaching offices and the value of theologians. Sola Scriptura does not.

I failed to see your view here, when most Sola Scripturalist use Sola Scriptura to deny the real and true presence of Jesus body, blood in His blessed Sacrament He gives to us.

This is a statement that begs the question; does RCC tradition contradict sacred scripture. The RCC says no. The rest of Christendom says yes, some to a greater extent than others, or else we’d all be Catholic.

The rest of Christendom who left their roots in Catholicism, due to Sola Scriptura with all the other Sola’s, use this tool to reject Apostolic Tradition. You reject what you do not know. Because what you reject, becomes blind to you from Sola Scriptura practice. It is here, when Jesus corrects the learned Jew, of what the scriptures truly say, they speak of His presence, which discounts any Sola Scriptura interpretation.

Sola Scriptura is a label, it’s not an actual “thing.” It describes a way of norming; scripture, which we all recognize as the word of God, is used to norm doctrine.

Using Sola Scriptura as a measuring standard Alone, has to result from the one interpreting from the Sola Scriptura. This practice is never a Jewish nor an Apostolic Tradition to arrive at a doctrine or a Truth. Because the one interpreting from the Sola Scriptura has no infallible protection to pull from the Sola Scriptura, when the Sola Scripturalist reject infallible protection Jesus gives to His Apostles and Apostolic Successors. A Rock never changes with time. Sola Scriptura is never a rock, because it succumbs itself to change and time. Look around you, know one Protestant follows the same Sola Scriptura practice (s).

Peace be with you

 

[Kliska]

That’s a false statement Kliska.

If you won’t listen to the ones that practice sola scriptura on what it is, then I guess the conversation is over. It doesn’t do anyone any good to argue over what one party perceives as a straw man, either way.

Grace and peace,
K

 

[thegreypiper]

II Thess. 2:15"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"

Either by word of mouth or letter. Sorry. St. Paul himself puts written tradition (scripture) and unwritten on an equal footing. Sola scriptura is UNSCRIPTURAL, no matter how you parse it.

But beyond that, as others have pointed out, it was almost a hundred years before the last NT book was written. Where was the Church before that? If you believe your church is “based on the Bible”, who was it who decided what belonged in the Bible?

Sorry, pal. I been there. Raised very strong protestant, my grandfather was a Disciples/Congregationalist minister. But I finally realized it didn’t add up, and I had to put my pride aside.

Poor Martin Luther. He wanted to get rid of one pope, but instead he made every man his own pope.